Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Sheriffs deny signing Brady Campaign letter, but Brady continues to use their names | Main | Judge Roberts and the Commerce Clause »

Is any Supreme Court nomination invalid?

Posted by David Hardy · 24 July 2005 10:01 AM

James Lindgren, on the Volokh Conspiracy, reports an interesting point.

By law, there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, and the President can nominate, and the Senate confirm, a successor when a Justice resigns or dies.

But O'Connor's resignation said it would become effective when her successor was confirmed. So her resignation won't take effect until the successor is confirmed. But until it takes effect, there is no opening, and no one can be nominated or confirmed. Catch-22, the best catch there is!

In practice, of course, the problem will be ignored (as it apparently was the last time it arose, when CJ Burger resigned the day his successor, CJ Rehnquist, was sworn in).

· Supreme Court caselaw

1 Comment

Paul | July 27, 2005 9:25 AM

You seem to think that the SC justices consider themselves to be bound in some way by the text of the Constitution. I doubt they even read it. If they were to read it it might infuence their decisions in a way they wouldn't like.

And then where would we be?